Note to all: this does not add up. No growth can be sustained
indefinitely, and it is this fact that requires our undivided
attention.

Our leaders continue to emphasize the need for continued, or—if it can
be believed—increased growth in order to manage the immanent dangers that
threaten not only our country, but our world. A dramatic array of these
leaders have very recently confirmed that our energy is running out and our
climate is speeding towards disaster, while at the same time insisting that
we need exactly more of the same policies that have sped us towards this
precipice in the first place. They gravely, and at great risk, understate or
even mischaracterize completely the nature of the problem. It is our worship
of growth that fueled our core societal problems; more growth only
exacerbates the problem, and it is scientifically proven that growth cannot
last very long. What happens when our core principle meets its natural
limit?

Tellingly, the US military itself has recently said that oil
production is dangerously close to its peak. The
Guardian reports:

The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity
could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by
2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

Specifically, the
February 18 Joint Operating Environment report warns that “[b]y
2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early
as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per
day.” This is an extremely small window in which to act. Here, the
military is simply confirming what we have known for decades. In 1956, Dr.
H. King Hubbert used a mathematical model and observations of then-current
trends in oil discovery and consumption to predict that US oil production
would begin terminal decline between 1965 and 1970, and it did in fact peak
in 1970. He and other scientists then applied the same procedure to analyze
world oil production, estimating that it would peak around 2010. Now we see
that both scientific modeling and observable reality agree that the lush
environment of cheap fossil fuels that we have enjoyed since the industrial
revolution will never again be available on this planet.

What will happen as they start to run out? The US military's report
agrees that it is necessary to have a sense for the potential risk:

At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment. …
One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of
totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by
ruthless conquest.

All of Hubbert's modeling is based on the observed trends of steady
growth in oil production. In addition, our economic system assumes that this
steady growth will continue. But by its very nature, growth rapidly pushes
the underlying system to its physical limits. We are speeding furiously
towards the cliff of energy withdrawal, hoping that new discoveries, new
technologies, and our very economic system will save us. But these are all
based on the old assumptions, the assumptions that end once we reach that
edge, and we must not trust them to support us.

If you listen to climate scientists — and despite the relentless
campaign to discredit their work, you should — it is long past time to do
something about emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases.

What were previously worst-case scenarios have become base-line
projections, with a number of organizations doubling their predictions for
temperature rise over the course of the 21st century.

Even with a bold warning about Global Warming and a nuanced economic
analysis, though, Krugman does not take into account the fact that the rate
of fossil fuel discoveries will soon start to decline. Even more, Krugman
explicitly requires that any solution to Global Warming must have only a
minimal impact on economic growth in the United States.

[T]here is a rough consensus among economic modelers about the costs
of action. That general opinion may be summed up as follows: Restricting
emissions would slow economic growth — but not by much.

That is, it would trim average annual growth to 2.31 percent, at
worst, from 2.4 percent.

But how will we sustain this growth, seen to be necessary by Krugman,
with ever-decreasing energy inputs? It is, in fact, impossible; to continue
to protect this growth is to both provide support for the core tenet that
itself supports this battery of problems, and to make putting on the brakes
that much harder.

Even the Energy Secretary of the United States, Steven Chu, is aware
of our core problems, but he also believes that we can outgrow our own
addictions. On April 6, he gave a presentation
titled Meeting the Energy and Climate Challenge at
the 2010 EIA/SAIS Energy Conference. On one hand, he recognizes that
our growth has limits. “The risks of climate change are becoming
increasingly apparent. We will live in a carbon
constrained world.” On the other hand, he wants rapid technological
growth to take its place. “To achieve our clean energy goals, we need
rapid, large-scale deployment of technology.” How will we accelerate
technology development and deployment with diminishing inputs of
energy?

Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce
jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness
traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources
of renewable, homegrown energy.

Alex Steffan
also responds strongly to Paul Krugman's article. As he says, we must
not fall into “the trap of downplaying the potential consequences in
order to appear more reasonable in an American debate that's been distorted
out of any relationship to reality.” Steffan goes on to elaborate on
what he sees as being some of the core problems with our dialogue, and he
provides a very good analysis. As always, we must not simply be "reasonable"
for its own sake, but rather, we must fight to be correct. Anything less is
unjust and shameful. As Professor Albert Bartlett puts it, “zero
growth is going to happen.” Our challenge is to ensure that we bring
ourselves to zero growth in a coordinated manner.